I have already addressed the question of circumstantial evidence[1] and to what miscarriages of justice it might lead to, but in the absence of witnesses and alibis how can it be contested? The pressure to reach a verdict in murder trials is such that a clear verdict of guilt is what the prosecution aims at. A trial by jury absolves all miscarriages of justice from any individual prosecutor, for he or she is only doing their job, but what does it really say about the British or Australian system of justice?

It is very difficult to contest circumstantial evidence where all the known facts point to a guilty verdict. And where there is also evidence of preexisting injury such as adultery, unwanted divorce or separation from children, or other personal injury, which might predispose a suspected murderer to reek revenge on a former spouse or friend, the guilty verdict assumes greater weight. Nevertheless, it is the weight of supposition, not that of proof. Proof is the only criteria and the only rational ground for a guilty verdict which may put someone away for life in prison.

The gravity of a life sentence is such that no circumstantial evidence ought to be considered as proof that the accused is guilty. How many people accused of serious crimes who have been innocent of such, have been convicted by juries on circumstantial evidence?[2]

JUSTICE IS ABOVE THE LAW

The law is a system of bringing people to justice not inventing the facts of a case to fit the crime. The law, lawyers, juries and judges are not the epitome of justice, how be theoretically, they are the dispensers of it. Nevertheless, in fact, lawyers represent the prosecution and the defense and only indirectly the justice of their representations. Juries represent the deliberations of these two sides and make judgements on them. Juries do not represent justice. Justice is always above the law for it is the ground upon which law is based in a civil society, a society that recognises equity and fairness as the property and right of all its citizens. For justice is equity and fairness. It has nothing to do with partisanship, taking sides, circumstances or coincidences. It is grounded in the truth. And the truth is the only ground upon which to base a conviction or an acquittal. Being swayed by the force of arguments of one lawyer against another, is not, nor can it be, the foundation of justice. A court hearing is what is heard in a trial by those who, whether judge or jury, must reach a verdict, and since the judge or jury stand in the place of God, meeting out life and death[3] so to speak, the verdict must be in accord with fairness and the truth.

Judges and juries are not a law unto themselves. Yet, despite this they continue to practice ‘verdicts by contiguity’, contiguity being merely the proximity of ideas and impressions in place or time.[4] There can be no justice in this manner of proceeding and results in far too many innocent people being convicted of crimes they did not commit.

The Life and Times of Sherlock Holmes examines the historical background of law and society and the predicaments Sherlock Holmes, [alias Sir Arthur Conan Doyle] faced and attempted to resolve.